What is the proper role of government?
To the Editor:

Stated differently, what issues are properly a matter of government oversight and intervention and which decisions should be left in the hands of the individual?

That question was raised and discussed openly in great detail from the very beginnings of this country. The clearest and most fundamental formulation of that answer is contained in the opening lines of the most basic document of American government: the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these [rights] are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights governments are [created with] the consent of the governedÖ"

It was clear from the beginning of the United States, as evidenced by this key language of the Declaration of Independence and the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the ratifying conventions in the states, and in the popular press of the day, that the principal purpose of government in the minds of the framers and ratifiers of the instruments of government was to secure the rights of the individual, and particularly the rights of individuals in their property. The framers and ratifiers of the Constitution knew this to be central to the protection of all other civil liberties, from intrusion by their neighbors and others who would invade them.

Government existed, in the view of the founders of the United States, to protect the rights of individuals and to provide them with a secure opportunity to pursue their own destinies, and not to act as a nanny and censor of private life. In fact, the private and public debate of the time centered on the best way to enable government to do the job of safeguarding rights while preventing it from being the invader of those rights.

The current debate in the public arena has been over these two conceptions of governmentís role:

The first conception is that which formed the original basis of the United States; individuals should be free of nonessential government interference with their daily lives and have the right to make free decisions, even if those decisions ultimately turn out to have been bad ones, so long as they do not invade the rights of others.

The second conception of government holds that government is responsible for, and is the proper caretaker of, the happiness of each individual and which regards individuals as being somewhat incompetent and in need of protection.

The ongoing debate about the proper role of government, the present property rights and regulatory reform movements, and the growth of innumerable grassroots organizations dedicated to a return of control over daily life to ordinary people, reflect a determination by the public that government has gone beyond its proper bounds and needs to be brought back within its limits.

Mark Pollot of Stewards of the Range
Submitted by Joe Hartley and Landowners Concerned About Property Rights

What are we paying for?
To the Editor:

The County Board has contracted with Johnson Controls for the sum of $2,750,000 for design and supervision of the CJC building project.

Last weekís Argus ran an article by Mr. Warner, Argus New Editor, where some local ninth grade students grilled some of the County Commissioners on CJC issues. Mr. Mark Beyer, representing Johnson Controls, answered some of the questions asked by the students.

Question #1: Why did the County Board decide to locate the CJC next to the Courthouse instead of on the edge of town?

Mr. Beyer told the students that it would cost much more to build on the edge of town because of roads, parking lots, sewer and water and other utilities. First of all, other sites were never given serious consideration so total costs were never available for comparison. The County Board has already spent about $750,000 on purchasing properties around the Courthouse when $225,000 would have purchased 40 acres of land within the city limits.

In addition, a parking lot on the revised plans has required the purchase of one more home. That home and another County-owned home will be demolished, along with the County garage near the jail. All existing blacktop and curb and gutter will have to be removed. I think Mr. Beyer is sadly mistaken when he tells ninth graders that it would cost more to build on bare ground that it would cost to build where the County proposes to build it.

Mr. Beyer told the students that transporting prisoners to and from the Courthouse would be a safety concern if the CJC was located on the edge of town. This is simply not true! Mr. Beyer knows very well that the proposed CJC building is to include the jail, courtrooms and all components of the court system. (The original reason given for locating the CJC at its current site was so it could be connected to the Courthouse. This is no longer a part of the plan.)

Concerning the issue of utilities, the County didnít bother to get any real costs on any of these items.

Mr. Beyer, shouldnít someone who is being paid $2,750,000 be held responsible for his statements? Do you have facts to support your statement that "the cost of locating a jail on the edge of town would increase the cost of the facility dramatically"?

Tune in next week for more information on the answers given to ninth gradersí questions by Mr. Beyer and County Board members.

Joe Lee
Caledonia, Minn.

Questions and more questions about CJC
To the Editor:

What is up with the CJC? Has the county notified all of the Caledonia City citizens about the variances and other items that will be required in order to build the CJC in a residential area of Caledonia? Will the City of Caledonia approve these issues against the will of the residents? Have those residential streets been built to handle very heavy trucks? If the sewer system breaks on South Street, etc., who is going to be responsible for its repair? Where will all this heavy equipment be stored at night while the years of construction take place? What streets will be closed during the construction period? Will safe walkways, etc. be available for our children, elders, etc.? Will our driveways and similar be kept completely open so that the many elders in the area can come and go as needed? Will the streets be able to handle two-way traffic? In an emergency, will there be any delays in obtaining the needed medical care or other items? Will the streets and sidewalks be kept free of mud, etc.?

Why isnít the jail being built in another location? Why are we bound and determined to make our citizens suffer more than the prisoners? In the May 30 issue of the Argus it is stated by Meyer that "the cost of locating a jail on the edge of town would increase the cost of the facility dramaticallyÖwould be the safety issue of transporting prisoners." Wait a minute, I thought the new CJC had courts built in it? Will not the prisoners be transported the same way at the undesired present site? The article also stated that people have trouble finding the La Crosse jail because it fits in with the other building around it. Please note that there are no houses by the La Crosse jail and there is no "jail" sign. There is a lack of parking and heavy congestion due to jail visitors. The La Crosse jail is currently considering to transport all female inmates to housing outside of La Crosse County.

Do we realize that the new jail will be equal to approximately five (5) Four Season Community Centers at a cost of more or about $1,000,000.00 (one million) dollars per one thousand residents including babies? Why are we spending 30 million or more to house prisoners (many who have been repeat offenders) who are idle for about 23 hours a day, instead of being positive and spend some of this money to rehab prisoners? We need a new justice system as well as a reasonably priced jail within our means! God bless us all.

Larry Salm
Caledonia, Minn.